Greta Garbo, in Camille

approximately 76 minutes and 21 seconds
74.2% of the film

The film

A Parisian courtesan must choose between the young man who loves her and the baron who wants her, even as her own health begins to fail.

You can read my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

It has the lack of naturalism of most of Garbo’s films, as it creates that special universe of beauty and gentleness and romance, you know what I mean. And it also has the look of a silent film, except for some great shots here and there. I never took it too seriously, but it was an ok, pleasant very old-fashioned (big plus to some) experience.

Greta Garbo as Marguerite Gautier

Everybody seems to love and praise this performance and consider it to be Greta’s best and an alltime classic. I even received an almost-hate-message when I posted my words on Camille on the other blog, because of my lack of enthusiasm. I stay detached from such praise and passion, but get I caught up in my own subjectivity baggage. I am not an admirer of Garbo as an actress. I LOVE the movie star she was, her mysterious persona, but a bit less her technique on screen.

Greta plays Marguerite Gautier, a beautiful, kind-hearted but careless French courtesan who falls for a very different, noble young man, but in the end she has to sacrifice it all for his well-being. It’s a very glamorous role, even when she has to play sick and it fits Garbo well, even though it’s the kind of role that would allow many different points of views. It’s a high-class look at this ancient subject matter.

I’m sure many recall her best in this, because she gets to wear all those pretty dresses, and to her own credit she does it wonderfully. She looks good and her aristocratic way of being serves the character well. There are moments in the film when she really shines; really shines and those scenes help create a character so likeable for a couple of seconds or minutes. I don’t like Marguerite, but when Garbo smiles or flirts, I get caught up in a scene and she does it great.

Her most delightful scenes are when she’s having fun: the theatre scene, the happy moments in the countryside, the flirting after the party. These are moments of greatness when Garbo lets loose and plays around, you can even feel it on her face, the expressions of bad girl or pure joy come to life in a perfect manner.

Even her theatricality works, in the scenes where she plays the spoiled side of Marguerite. She acts well with some unreadable lines, but unfortunately doesn’t always control her garboness. Though the scene with Barrymore is done mostly well, impeccable towards the end, it’s the more dramatic side of her acting where I went disappointed.

I can blame the script sometimes, but then again: it often feels like she forgets this is not a silent film, so it would’ve worked so much better for her, had she toned down the over-dramatic face expressions and all that staginess that she sometimes brought to a scene. I know: it’s Greta Garbo (!) and this is her thing, but it often wasn’t on my taste. The tears were in place, but I lacked a certain natural feeling that would’ve had me more connected to that certain scene (most of the ones shared with Robert Taylor and obviously the final one).

I know it’s a question of preference and inclination to a certain style of acting, but I would hardly call this performance an alltime best. That being said, I enjoyed Garbo’s performance a lot (really!) in those chill, flirty scenes. She gave too much, when a bit less would’ve done more, especially with the passion of the line readings. This Garbo theatrical overacting is hard to explain and different from other types, so you must see it to believe it. A glorious unbalanced performance: , I guess.

Tomorrow or on Sunday I’ll post my conclusions for 1937. Let’s digest Garbo first. :)

Victor Victoria



Andrew is organizing some kind of a Celebration of Musicals on Sunday May 30th. Because I’ll

be out of town, I’m posting today my favorite. Do click HERE on Sunday (or earlier) to see what bloggers think of musicals and their favorites.

I love Victor Victoria, so much that I consider it among the best EVER. It’s true, the main reason doesn’t stand in the music. You see (or you know), it’s not the type of musical in which people start singing all of the sudden. Victor Victoria is a fantastic comedy, with lots of songs and music. It tells the story of a woman who is forced to pretend to be a man pretending to be a woman. It might sound confusing, but the movie is truly a classic.

The screenplay is the highlight, without a doubt one of the best ever written. Yes, I stand by it: so many excellent one-liners, the dialogue is fabulous and funny and the story just makes sense all around. It is Blake Edwards’ greatest achievement and one of Julie’s Andrews best performances.

The actors are fabulous, both Robert Preston and Lesley Ann Warren deserved to win supporting Oscars for the hilarious comedy performances. Julie is fabulous, understands the movie for the screwball it is and probably delivers her best singing on screen. Which brings me to the Songs: Le Jazz Hot is a classic and such a demanding piece of music. See it to believe it. It stands on its own, but the scene in the film brings so much glam to an already fabulous song. Julie performing it is beyond words and I really couldn’t praise it more.



The Shady Dame from Seville is funny and gives Julie the chance to hit an incredible high note. I won’t talk about all of them, I’ll just say that the supporting actors also share the limelight, with a special dedication to Lesley Ann Warren’s own musical number, the funniest.



I know when I see (again and again) something I really enjoy. I rarely directly recommend films and this one’s a winner. The sharp screenplay and terrific acting make it an instant comedy classic…

Barbara Stanwyck, in Stella Dallas

approximately 70 minutes and 5 seconds
67.5% of the film

The film

A young woman succeeds in social advancement through a romantic relationship and marriage. However, the marriage is not successful, and she ends up dedicating her life to their daughter's advancement and success.

You can read my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

Stella Dallas is a very cheesy, predictable, dated film. It’s never hard to watch, but rarely brings something new or refreshing. Its one successful element is Barbara Stanwyck’s performance; and, oh yes: a very good final shot. Just for ‘30s fans.

Barbara Stanwyck as Stella Dallas

Barbara Stanwyck received her first Best Actress nom (out of 4) with the help of deglam and melodrama. She was already a Hollywood star, but I suspect she was soon to become a phenomenon. Of all her Oscar roles, this is the trashiest and it’s as Oscar baity as it gets. No wonder she thought she gonna win: the role has tears, character arc and lots of no makeup scenes.

Stankwyck plays Stella, a stubborn, good hearted white trash beauty who marries out of her league, dreaming of becoming a lady. However, once married, she ignores her husband’s guidance, settling for a lack of good taste. She dedicates herself to raising her daughter, but soon discovers her uneducated manners & image affect her daughter’s future prospects.

There are two opposite sides to her performance. First, there’s Barbara playing an ignorant and stubborn woman, unaware of how embarrassing her lack of taste is. Here is where Stanwyck mostly fails, because often enough she’s unconvincing. She stretches a lot the vulgarity of Stella, which isn’t always bad, but often enough lacks believability. There’s one particular physical scene with her throwing out a drunk, where I felt like she totally pulled out of character for a couple of seconds and almost unintentionally laughed.

Then there’s the real human side of Stella: the mother. She plays this role with a lot of emotion and it’s her face that beautifully suggests love, or shame or regret. There are a couple of scenes which are quite heartbreaking. Not the flashy, dialogue-filled one, but moments of quiet in which Barbara lets us know exactly what Stella feels.

There’s a scene on the train in which Stella accidentally finds out that her daughter was the laughing stock because of the vulgarity of her mother. She feels guilt when suddenly confronted with this truth she hadn’t realized till now. And it’s all in Barbara’s expressive eyes. The second one is the ending in the rain, which I won’t spoil, but it’s the same acting effect, previously used to perfection and same here.

What a confusing performance Barbara delivers. She’s so good when in the emotional area, but kind of fails in delivering a full believable performance. It needs to be all natural to feel right to me. Yet, in those seconds of greatness she probably delivers the best single acting moments of her category. Conflicted as I am, I’m going with .

Janet Gaynor, in A Star Is Born

approximately 60 minutes and 21 seconds
55% of the film

The film

A young woman comes to Hollywood with dreams of stardom, but achieves them only with the help of an alcoholic leading man whose best days are behind him.

You can read my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

If you are looking for a movie representing 1930s Hollywood, this must come as a recommendation. I enjoy it and respect it a lot, as it was the film that opened the road for a lot of movies of its kind. It’s hardly perfect, but I prefer it to the 1954 and 1976 versions.

Janet Gaynor as Esther Blodgett / Vicki Lester

Janet Gaynor holds that one distinction of being the first person to win the Best Actress category, and not for one, but for 3 (!) performances. A Star Is Born was her Oscar comeback and it’s an important role, but not as meaty as some might think. And it’s hard for her performance to stand the test of time: in 1954, Judy Garland took the same role, gave it a musical twist and created a veeery admired performance, with some Oscar drama of its own. But in the end, this is not a comparison game…

Janet Gaynor plays Esther Blodgett, a simple girl from a small town dreaming of becoming a Hollywood star. She moves to L.A., faces some difficulties, then marries drunken fading star Norman Maine and she becomes an overnight acting sensation. However, the success of her career brings personal unhappiness. It is indeed a leading role, but the real stars of the film are the subject and the storyline… and was her casting that great?

To me, the problem with the performance is both character and casting related. First, as I said, despite the premise of the film, Esther/Vicki is not a very complex role and it lacks some of those big scenes that would demand a real dramatic effort from the actress. She does get some drama, but the writing doesn’t underline the acting or Janet just fails to put it all out there, which brings me to problem no. 2.

For the most of it, Janet is underplaying, even though it’s not necessarily a role that would’ve asked that. I can understand her shyness and a bit of restraint in the beginning, which is justified by the character’s innocence. Esther is an honest girl and doesn’t sleep her way to the top, she is simple and kind and sweet. But at one point, Janet’s acting should have shifted a bit; I didn’t buy that she was all of the sudden a big movie star, because I didn’t sense it in Janet’s performance. She didn’t bother to act the role from that perspective, and I would’ve wanted her to.

Is it in the end all about the casting? Janet looks like a nice, innocent girl (ps: I would’ve chosen a younger actress) but she doesn’t make me believe that she’s hungry enough to want to live the Hollywood life. And also, she doesn’t really sell the charisma of the character as I didn’t find myself rooting for her. As my last comparison, even though I’m not the biggest fan of Judy’s performance, her casting was great: she inspired both the kindness, but also that fierce desire to reach her goal.

I’ve made it sound like I really dislike this performance, but that’s not the case. She is constantly ok throughout the film and there aren’t mistakes or something bad about the acting. It’s just not a performance to remember. You remember the story, Fredric March’s terrific performance, but not that much about Janet; she is ok, good at times, but maybe a bit lazy in her acting. So I guess I’m going with .

Isn’t She Great?

Last year I wrote a bit about Cranford, calling it the best tv movie / miniseries I had seen in a while. Actually, the most entertaining and my type of movie making. [yes, I have seen John Adams]. The miniseries had 5 parts and although quite girlie it fits perfectly for anybody who enjoys period pieces like Sense & Sensibility and stuff. BUT, Cranford also had some humour on the side, provided mostly by Imelda Staunton.

So I was excited when I heard it was back with 2 more episodes slash Christmas special. After seeing them, I can declare they weren’t as good as the first 5, but still a treat.

Judi Dench was AMAZING in the first Cranford, giving one of my favourite performances of hers (if not THE one). And it’s not a character she’s often done before: an honest, educated, incredibly kind spinster. Had it not been for Laura Linney in John Adams, I’m quite sure Judi would’ve won both Emmy and Golden Globe. Her performance was so touching and effective and it remains the same for these 2 new episodes.

These were my favourite 2 stills of hers from this Christmas special. She must get an Emmy nomination this summer and if she submits part II, she will be a definite contender for the win. Love her! See Cranford, especially the first 5 episodes!

Irene Dunne, in The Awful Truth

approximately 59 minutes and 46 seconds
69.7% of the film

The film

Suspicions lead a married couple to begin divorce proceedings, whereupon they start undermining each other's attempts to find new romance.

You can read my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

Is the film that good or was I just in the mood for a relaxing screwball comedy? Whatever the answer, The Awful Truth is very entertaining, and fun to watch and quite well written. The Irene Dunne – Cary Grant pairing works perfectly and there really isn’t anything bad about this movie.

Irene Dunne as Lucy Warriner

Comedy is hard to judge. After something dramatic, much too expressive like Luise Rainer’s performance, I get the total opposite: the fun, light, relaxed acting of Irene Dunne… And I’m usually tough on comedy in this category, but when a performance seems so effortless and effective, it gets all my admiration. Irene Dunne glows all throughout The Awful Truth. And not just because of fancy dresses and luxurious sets; what she does is allow the fun and silly to take over the performance.

Irene plays Lucy Warriner, a modern, beautiful 1930s married socialite. When she and her husband both fall under the suspicion of cheating, they decide without thinking on a divorce that really doesn’t bring happiness to any of them. The awful truth is that they still love eachother. Lucy starts dating a well mannered Southern man, but her heart still belongs to Jerry. The comedy comes from wacky episodes involving either the characters or a very smart dog.

As I said, Irene smiles her way through the film and she really is the star of the picture. In many ways, she steals the spotlight from Cary Grant and that’s not easy to do. The scene lightens up every time she’s on screen and she does get some of the best lines. The screenplay helps a lot and offers her the right material for a true comedic performance. Her timing is perfect, the dialogue is carried very well and much in the spirit of the film and genre.

Irene is having so much fun that she seems like she’s drunk sometimes. Her cool joyfulness is contagious and makes the character immediately likeable. It’s also an effortless performance: her way of being/acting is so sweet and charming that the performance has a natural, believable and relatable feeling. Her decision to keep it light is very relevant for the film, but even so: Irene knows when to nuance it a bit.

The Awful Truth doesn’t have dramatic scenes, but it does have one or two emotional ones, when Lucy realizes that she really wants Jerry back and subtly tries to find out if he’d be interested too. A soft, loving look or face expression is all we need from Irene to understand what Lucy is all about, and Irene knows how to do all of that without disturbing the funny mood of the film.

There are two big scenes I see as most relevant for her performance. First, it’s when she’s dragged on the dance floor by Dan, her new fiancé. His dancing technique is embarrassingly creative and Lucy is forced to dance along even though she looks most uncomfortable. I giggle when remembering it. The second one: the big scene towards the end when she pretends to be Jerry’s white trash sister just to embarrass him in front of his girlfriend and her family. The scene has it all: great funny dialogue, a crazy singing moment from Irene and most of all: terrific acting.

When you get such a well written funny role, it should be easy to deliver a decent performance. However, Irene does much more than that. She is naturally charming, has acting experience, comedy timing and gives one of the best screwball comedy performances of the 30s. I liked it too much to ignore it: .

Luise Rainer, in The Good Earth

approximately 57 minutes and 17 seconds
42.1% of the film

The film

The story of a farmer and his wife in China: a story of humility and bravery.

You can read my short review of the film just by clicking HERE.

The Good Earth has its good moments and it really is easy to watch. Technically, it’s pretty impressive for that era and, even though it’s much dated, the film is a nice sit through if you’re in the mood for 1930s epics.

Luise Rainer as O-Lan

While watching the film again, I was smiling: can you imagine Greta Garbo or Norma Shearer playing O-Lan, Luise Rainer’s Oscar winning character? This role was not for everyone, and I’m sure not everyone wanted it. If you’ve seen The Good Earth, try to picture that. :) It’s not just deglam, it’s a victim role in a misogynistic film. What’s kind of special about O-Lan is that the role requires almost NO vanity from the actress. You need to be able to look as poor and uneducated and humble as it gets. Though it doesn’t seem like a compliment for her, Luise Rainer manages that and it’s good casting.

Luise plays O-Lan, a poor, humble Chinese slave offered as wife to a poor, not-so-smart but well intended and loving farmer. Together they build a family and work the land and prosper, but destiny gives them a lot of bumps: famine, danger, greed, betrayal. As the family goes together through a lot, we always know that O-Lan is the wise one, she has the balls to make the tough decisions, act courageously and save the day. She is always the moral compass of the film and the unselfish mother hen.

You can roll your eyes when you see such a character. To Luise’s credit, she plays it just as unselfishly as O-Lan is and makes it believable. There’s nothing strange in seeing her working on the field or washing the clothes with a stick or looking drugged when confronted with hunger. Luise IS in character and sometimes actually takes it a step too far.

I didn’t know how to call that. Luise is like an overacting silent film star. Her face does most of the acting here, because O-Lan is too uneducated and humble to speak too much for herself. But one might say some facial expressions are taken too far and it becomes exaggerated when she’s expressing everything too literally. Her acting is theatrical, but to me it worked for the most parts. The role is of such a manner and let’s not forget this is a simple, kind woman, so her reactions are obvious and never fake.

However, this doesn’t mean there’s no depth to the character. I was surprised when we got the idea that she killed her newborn just because she knew it would benefit the family. It’s a key moment and another proof that she’s the one who knows best. And Luise plays it so well that I didn’t judge her, not even for a second.

There are 2 scenes standing out for her from my point of view. The first one is obvious: the stealing of the diamonds and getting caught. Here is where I think her overacting works, because it’s such a tense moment in the film, as she might get killed, and the fear on her face fits perfectly with the scene. The other one is much lighter: in a moment of childish day dreaming, she dreams out loud about wearing something new to impress the people from the house she was a slave in. Her innocence is charming and shows a different side of the character.

Luise Rainer’s performance is not on everyone’s taste. I myself call it overacting, but at the same I go back to the character and find reasons in the story. What’s obvious is that her performance is the best of the film and her character a bit more layered that we might’ve thought. She shows range and makes O-Lan accessible and likeable. It’s not a performance I love, as I can see the flaws, but it IS what the character demanded, with no vanity, and in the overacting touch of the 1930s. I go with .

Best Actress 1937

I cannot wait for The Last Station any longer, to finish my Best Actress 2009. When I'll find it, I'll post about Helen Mirren and draw the conclusions... In the meantime, I have one decade left: the 1930s. I have chosen this specific Best Actress category for over a year now, but didn't get to talk about it until now. So... it's 1937! I owe it to 1937. Once this category's over, I'll get back to the lottery style...

But getting to Oscar's lineup: all 5 are well known names. Garbo, Irene Dunne and maybe even Stanwyck can be considered movie legends. Luise Rainer holds the unique record of being the first performer to have 2 Oscars (also consecutive). And Janet Gaynor is the first winner the Best Actress category has ever had. It's not a year with fascinating movies, but it's an interesting mix of comedy, soapish drama and very old fashioned drama.

So I give you the 5 ladies that Oscar had chosen for 1937:

from left to right, I have the pleasure to introduce:

• Irene Dunne, in The Awful Truth
• Barbara Stanwyck, in Stella Dallas
• Luise Rainer, in The Good Earth
• Janet Gaynor, in A Star Is Born
• Greta Garbo, in Camille

I will write first about the winner, Luise Rainer.